Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Hillarious Off the Wall Police Calls by Petraeus' Other Other Woman

This clip is of recordings of Dr. Scott Kelley and Jill Kelley calling Tampa police to get reporters off their property. Notice how they couch the calls to give the impression that the reporters are completely unknown to them and never disclose to the police dispatchers that the trespassers are from the press.

Also get a load of Jill Kelley claiming diplomatic status (She somehow finagled honorary diplomatic status from South Korea)

Note: According to TouTube, this clip was released by the Tampa Bay Police Media Relations based on a public records request for 911 calls.

16 comments:

Honorary Consul = diplomatic inviolability = exemption from host country taxation. Smooth move Jill baby! Bonus: A non-resident is liable for tax only in respect of income derived from sources within Korea.

Forget an Obama phone. I want me some South Korean diplomatic inviolability too!!

This is stupid. People should have absolute ownership of their property and if someone refuses to leave they should be shot in the face. It would take exactly one of these "reporters" getting shot in the face before they will never trespass again.

And yet the poor manners exhibited by people like the media in this case only exist due to state intervention. They *know* that nobody will attack them physically for what they are doing so they have no problem trespassing and harassing others. Would you have preferred if instead of "shoot them in the face" the proposal was "mandatory 25 years to life imprisonment with no option for parole"? Does a state sponsored solution instead of an individual one make you feel better?

"The term "blunderbuss" is of Dutch origin, from the Dutch word donderbus, which is a combination of donder, meaning "thunder", and bus, meaning "Pipe" (Middle Dutch: busse, box, tube, from Late Latin, buxis, box,[1] from Ancient Greek pyxίs (πυξίς), box: esp. from boxwood).

The transition from donder to blunder is thought by some to be deliberate; the term blunder was originally used in a transitive sense, synonymous with to confuse, and this is thought to describe the stunningly loud report of the large bore, short barreled blunderbuss."- Wikipedia

William Leach, who cares what people think? How did people, rather than truth, become the standard for what's right or wrong? Are you suggesting that property should be trespass free? Does it not lead to moral decay when trespass is allowed, or hell when "the press" is allowed to follow after someone haranguing them?

@ Will Leach. The proposal was not to shoot someone as a first resort. It was to inform the trespasser that they were trespassing and were to leave immediately. This ensures that one accidentally violating the property rights of another has an opportunity to apologize and abscond. It is if the molestation continues that the proposed shooting take place. At this point the molester has demonstrated that he/she has no respect for the person that he/she is molesting, that he is doing it purposefully and with malice, and THAT is certainly deserving of being shot in the face.

The standard is very simple. Do not initiate violence against another. Do not initiate molestation or damage against another's property, and you will be fine. There is no need for a second or third or fourth chance. Once it has been established that the aggressor set out to purposefully molest or do harm to another or another's property they have violated the sovereignty of another and putting them down is the just approach.

Are you half as conserned about other people as you are about being right? Did you notice how dishonest your being, hiding behind technicalities? Maybe shooting someone in the face is a second resort, but that does not make it a neccessary one. And as for all of your talk about molesters, I know far too many peoplle who have been molested and I dont think one one of them would appreciate your confusing of rapist and reporters. I am a sttong supporter of first ammendment rights, but freedom is a two edged sword. I just dont see how shooting stubbotn eporters is a responsable way to assert ones rights.If you take such an extreme stance, and shooting people is extreme, then you end up isolating yourself with other extremist and loosing all bearing. You cant go around acting like shooting people is a good solution to such a small problem and be surprised when people choose the statist alternative.

Uhm. Shooting people is the state alternative. What is your point? If you don't obey them they come to put you in a cage. If you refuse to go to a cage you get shot.

You need a dictionary, "molest" does not imply rape. But I'm willing to bet those people you know who have been molested would have sure liked to have the option to shoot their molester in the face.

If you believe in private property then you by extension have to believe in a right to defend said property. That is not an "extreme stance". You clearly do not believe in private property. You believe in state supervised occupation of a particular land parcel. Most people share your viewpoint. I think yours and others faith in the state is grossly misplaced, and I think that many people have suffered and will continue to suffer for that misplaced faith.

Since you have decided that you are the arbiter of what is "acceptable". What is your proposal for an appropriate way to deal with a trespasser. And, since in my experience, most trespassers do it on a serial basis, what is your proposal for followup reinforcement once your first solution fails?